FLIGHT International, 2 January 1969
V/STOL in Combat
SIR.—In Mr B. P. Laight's "Future V/STOL Combat
Aircraft" [Flight, December 19) I was particularly in
terested in one diagram of possible engine layout. This
showed a full tailpipe exhaust combined with the usual
four nozzles—roughly a mating of Hunter and Harrier.
This has seemed to me a good idea ever since a P.1127
was lost, some years ago. when part of one of the nozzles
broke off and the aircraft apparently became uncon
trollable under power.
Those four nozzles must be pretty vulnerable to ground
fire, and we're talking about a ground-attack aircraft
which can expect to collect a few bullets in the normal
course of operations. If damage to just one nozzle is
going to lose us an aircraft (and, at that height, prob
ably a pilot) wouldn't the extra weight of a conventional
tailpipe—through which all the thrust would be diverted
in normal flight—be worth having? A tailpipe can stand
a few bullet-holes. I fancy, and after an attack the
pilot would not attempt to switch thrust to the nozzles
until he had enough height to change his mind if a
nozzle turned out to be damaged. Then, with luck, he
could make a conventional landing at a fixed base. At
least he'd have time to work out his next move.
London NW3 CAVIN LYALL
QFE or QNH?
SIR,—Although QFE has many advantages for take-off
and landing, it is understandable that countries with
high airfields "and/or a high transition level are reluctant
to change from QNH. Failing international agreement
on which to use, I feel that safety could be enhanced,
and some international agreement reached, by changing
the terminal area (TMA) altimeter setting procedures
where QFE is used for landing.
In all TMAs where there are no high airfields and
there is a low transition level it should be possible to
use QFE at all times below that level. In other TMAs
QNH would be used. This would eliminate the use of
the potentially dangerous intermediate QNH setting. It
would also mean that a pilot, worldwide, would only
have two settings and one change to deal with on any
departure or arrival.
What about obstacle clearance and procedural
vertical separation in a TMA using QFE below transition
level? Obstacle clearance should be no problem, because
unless the airfield to which the QFE applies is below sea
level, flying with the normal safety altitude indicated and
QFE set ensures that any error is on the safe side.
Regarding vertical separation, if the accepted minimum
could be increased by the difference in altitude between
the highest and lowest airfields in use in the area, then
safe separation would result.
If we can't agree on a setting for landing, perhaps
we could make the two settings easier to live with.
Ickenham, Middx B. w. WELLICOME
35
Looking Ahead into Space
SIR,—Two articles in Flight for November 14': "BLDO
at the Crossroads" and "Impressions of the XfXth IAF
Congress" were full of interesting reflections on the
present state of European astronautics.
I contributed from I960 onwards to the literature on
policies for Britain in astronautics. Although 1 made
several misjudgments, the most conspicuous being my
apprehension about the development problems of Blue
Streak, I believe some of the difficulties facing Europe
today were first enunciated in my articles:
"The time has come for Britain to face the fact that her
best chance of getting into astronautics on a worthwhile
scale is in close co-operation with the United States"
(Aeronautics, May 1960, page 29).
"A common fault with advocates of an independent British
space programme is to confuse reality and prospect"
[Aeronautics, September 1960, pages 80-83).
"Space research and exploitation is of inherently global
concern. Anyone who launches a communication satellite
cannot help but make available a potentially worldwide
facility. The objective in co-operative ventures should there
fore be to make the most effective contribution from the
global viewpoint" (The Aeroplane and Astronautics, Jan
uary 27, 1961, pages 98-100).
I have selected these items from the pre-ELDO period
as 1 think they tend to establish that many of the
mistakes subsequently made need not have been made.
When ELDO was set up, Flight ran my commentary "Is
ELDO Realistic?" in its issue for April 5, 1962. Follow
ing the decision regarding the PAS development, my
article "ELDO-PAS and After" was published in Flight
for August II, 1966. Both these articles cautioned
against the mistakes being made in space policy. Any
one attempting to forecast future developments is stick
ing his neck out, and there is much that I wrote that
leaves me less than satisfied. But think of the millions
that could have been saved, and the even more preci
ous time that could have been available to Britain, if the
policy-makers had studied this material.
Winnipeg s. w. GREENWOOD.
Associate Professor, University
of Manitoba.
H. P. Martin: Not Quite Forgotten
SIR,—As one who has always been interested in
aviation from its earliest days, if only as a "watcher
from the sidelines," so to speak, might I pay my small
tribute to the memory of H. P. Martin, whose passing
you recorded in Flight for November 7 and of whom
you quote a friend's words: "One of the pioneers of
the aircraft industry died a forgotten man on Sep
tember 15"?
Although I only had the pleasure of meeting Mr
Martin for a few moments 55 years ago, I have always
retained the memory, renewed whenever I look through
my scrapbook of those days, containing a photograph
of him together with his partner, G. H. Handasyde, and
some of the fine machines they produced.
On November 23, 1913, I visited Brooklands with
friends, and was fortunate enough to win a free flight,
the number of my entrance ticket being the first drawn
for that purpose. I was to have flown in a Bristol
Boxkite; but when Harold Barnwell (who was to be
my pilot) came along, he said that if I would wait a
few minutes he would take me up in the Martinsyde
monoplane, which he thought I would like better'."This
was a fine new machine and of considerable beauty,
powered by an Austro-Daimler engine of 120 h.p.,
capable of a speed of some 85 m.p.h. and which earlier
that year had finished second to Gustav Hamel's clipped-
wing Morane-Saulnier in the Aerial Derby. One rather
unusual feature about the Martinsyde was its wing
bracing, which was by kingpost.
Both Messrs Martin and Handasyde were on the
scene as preparation was made for take-off; and Mr
Martin, being concerned that I had no goggles, insisted
that I borrowed his. It is a memory I have retained
ever since.
Prior to the 1914--18 war this fine monoplane was